Archives since 1995

Categories

Sotheby’s withdraws “fake” buckle from next week’s sculpture sale

Exclusive: Work that had been removed from display in 2005 was back on
market

By Martin Bailey | From Art Market | Posted: 27.11.08

LONDON. Sotheby’s has withdrawn an important “13th century” belt buckle from
its 2 December old master sculpture and works of art sale after questions
were raised by The Art Newspaper. The intricately-designed silver and enamel
buckle had recently been owned by Paul Ruddock, now chairman of the Victoria
and Albert (V&A) Museum.

We were contacted by Claude Blair, retired head of the V&A’s metalwork
department, who told us that the buckle is a modern fake. Following our
queries, Sotheby’s issued a statement, saying that “due to questions raised
since the publication of the catalogue, we—in consultation with the US
consignor—have decided to withdraw lot 2 from our sale.” It had an estimate
of £20,000-£30,000.

Dr Blair, who left the V&A in 1982, is convinced that the buckle is one of
the notorious Marcy fakes, marketed by Louis Marcy in the 1890s. Marcy
worked as a dealer in both Paris and London, selling “medieval” metalwork.

The buckle surfaced in the collection of Dacre Kenrick Edwards, whose estate
was sold at Christie’s in 1961. It then passed to distinguished New York
collector Germain Seligman, who lent it for an exhibition at The Cloisters
(Metropolitan Museum, New York) in 1968. The buckle was offered at Sotheby’s
in 1995 (estimate £15,000-£20,000), but went unsold. It passed through two
specialist dealers in New York and in 2004 was sold to an English collector
via the London dealer Sam Fogg.

In May 2005 the buckle was presented in an exhibition of “Medieval and Later
Treasures from a Private Collection” at the V&A, where it was dated by
curator Paul Williamson to 1280. At the time The Art Newspaper identified
the anonymous collector of the hundred items in the show as Paul Ruddock,
then a V&A trustee. The authenticity of the buckle was questioned by Dr
Blair and it was quietly removed from the display before the closure of the
exhibition.

It was then tested by Oxford University’s Research Laboratory for
archaeology & art, which showed that the enamel and silver filigree dated
from the 19th century. The silver alloy of the body was consistent with
medieval silver, although this could have been melted down old silver.

Dr Blair also established that the buckle and three other pieces of
metalwork had been shown at the Society of Antiquaries in 1905, when they
belonged to Sir John Charles Robinson, the retired first superintendent of
the South Kensington Museum (V&A). In 1908 these objects were exposed as of
modern French manufacture and it emerged that they had all been bought from
Marcy. A number of Marcy items had also been acquired by the V&A in the
1890s (including a reliquary, chess casket and portable altar), but these
too were long ago exposed as fakes.

Following evidence in 2005 that the buckle was either a fake or a pastiche,
Mr Ruddock returned it to Sam Fogg, who refunded the price. Last month Mr
Fogg told us: “We arranged for the return of the buckle to its previous
owner. I do not know who owns it now.” He added that the Oxford tests showed
“the enameling of the coat of arms was probably later restoration —not that
the piece was a fake”.

Last month the buckle appeared in Sotheby’s 2 December catalogue of Old
Master Sculpture and Works of Art, where it was lot 2, “Franco-Flemish or
English, late 13th century belt buckle”.

The catalogue notes: “Only nobility would have had the means necessary to
raise a utilitarian object like a belt buckle into such a precious work of
art. It therefore comes without surprise that the buckle bears the arms of
the Lords Ingham of Ingham, trustees and ambassadors to the British rulers
during the continuous wars with France around 1300.”

The Sotheby’s catalogue entry goes on to cite V&A curator Dr Williamson’s
2005 catalogue, which was sponsored by Mr Fogg. This leaves the unfortunate
impression that the museum accepts the object, whereas it was actually
removed from its display.

Mr Ruddock was astonished and unhappy to learn last month that after
returning the buckle, it had later been put into Sotheby’s. Dr Williamson
was equally concerned, and he too has contacted Sotheby’s. He told Sotheby’s
that since publication of the catalogue of the V&A show, he now regards the
buckle as “very problematic”.